Re: Copyright in Bettmann Archive images

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Green <daveg[_at_]corbis.com> wrote (forwarded by Gerald Barnett <barnett[_at_]u.washington.edu>:
>
> In Corbis' case, our digital copyright protects only the additions
> made to the underlying image. Corbis does not intend to restrict
> individuals from lawfully reproducing copies of public domain material
> acquired from other sources. Rather, Corbis' intent is to protect its

                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(emphasis added).

If the material from the other source is in the public domain it can certainly be legally copied, right? And if it is identical to the material from Corbis, then that is in the public domain, and likewise capable of being legally copied, right?

If you are stating that all material from Corbis is under perpetual copyright because of the sweat of the brow of the efforts of professional photographers and darkroom operators, you conflict with your earlier statement that Corbis material is only copyrighted to the extent that new creative effort is added to the original material. Only if the creative effort is fixed in a material form or creative expression is it copyrightable, not as a performance. There is nothing in the law to protect "significant investment."

I'm sorry, but you will have to justify your protection efforts better in this group. I believe many of us feel that the Bridgeman decision really means what it says, that reproductions of public domain material cannot be newly copyrighted. You may wish to charge money for access or usage rights, but you cannot further limit copying beyond what is fair use under the law, or any copying of public domain material.

Can you provide case law where Corbis has enforced copyright or license on copying of public domain material?

BTW, at a recent NINCH town meeting the professional photographers seem to differ from your view of protection--they characterize corporations such as Corbis as the sharks and them as the shark food-- they feel that there may be no use trying to go through such corporations and seek protection under the DMCA--they will lose in any case. So you might wish to consult the photographers themselves before you portray your company as only protecting their interests.

Eric Eldred
<eldred[_at_]mediaone.net> Received on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 23:36:19 GMT